On continuing scepticism about Covid vaccination

20 thoughts on “On continuing scepticism about Covid vaccination”

1. In this article you write: “in Australia it is always around 45 and in the Northern Territory… the cycles are around 48.” Can you provide details to where you got this information? I have found articles confirming 40-45ct on NSW’s pathology website and a SA FOI request, but I have not seen any data to confirm the NT claim of around 48ct.

   Reply

   1. Hello Stacey,

      Thanks for your question.

      Please contact Ray Bergmann who wrote that ““in Australia it is always around 45 and in the Northern Territory… the cycles are around 48.”

      Ray’s email is ray2wbt@gmail.com

      Ian Curr,
      Editor
      6 March 2022

      Reply

   2. Hi Stacey, You have done very well to find articles confirming 40-45ct on NSW’s pathology website, and I’ve been searching to find where I got that information about the NT PCR cycles, but without success I’m sorry. I found my note to 2 friends who were investigating this were I have added my two cents about the cycles used in Australia and NT but I haven’t recorded where I got the information from: “Despite this, it is known almost all the labs in the US are running their tests at least 37 cycles and sometimes as high as 45. (Ray Bergmann adds: in Australia it is always around 45 and in the Northern Territory where the government is keen to remove the populace to enable fracking, the cycles are around 48.) I don’t know how where I got this information, sorry! The NHS “standard operating procedure” for PCR tests rules set the limit at 40 cycles. I see that the World Health Organization recommended a CT of 45. Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments (MIQE PCR) guidelines state that: “[CT] values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported,” Dr Fauci himself even admitted anything over 35 cycles is almost never culturable: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Vy6fgaBPE).
      The CDC’s own data suggests no sample over 33 cycles could be cultured: (https://web.archive.org/web/20200828153214/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/duration-isolation.html),
      Germany’s Robert Koch Institute says nothing over 30 cycles is likely to be infectious:(https://web.archive.org/web/20200925013250/https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Vorl_Testung_nCoV.html). Sorry I haven’t been able to answer your question.

      Reply

      1. Thanks for your quick response, Ray.

         Reply

2. Thanks Ian, In answer to your Fact Check let me clarify that I was excluding the West Bank and Gaza from the term Israel, by which I meant Israel within the borders Israel occupied between 1948 and June 1967. But you are right to imply that COVID19 vaccination coverage in Israel varies among population groups depending on different age structures and socio-economic differences (i.e.Ultra-Orthodox Jewish, Palestinian population of all religious denominations defined in Israel as “Israeli Arab”, and Israeli population defined as “General Jewish excluding Ultra-Orthodox Jewish”). The fully vaccinated percentage of this total population was 55.4% on 1-Jun-2021 and 62.3% on 10-Dec-2021.(ourworldindata.org vaccination-israel-impact) The report I linked to the 100% vaccinated cohort was the one submitted to the Israeli Ministry of Health on 1-Jun-2021, which concluded that “between one in 3000 and one in 6000 men ages 16 to 24 who received the vaccine developed the rare condition of the (normally rare) heart muscle inflammation called myocarditis.” It was this cohort of “men aged 16 to 24 who received the vaccine” who were 100% vaccinated as cited by the study. (https://www.science.org/content/article/israel-reports-link-between-rare-cases-heart-inflammation-and-covid-19-vaccination, Vogel G & Couzin-Frankel, 1-Jun-2021) Israel had been vaccinating teenagers 16 and older since late January 2021, and the Ministry of Health was scheduled to announce on 2-Jun-2021 whether vaccinations would be opened to children 12 and older.

   I might be happy to submit to a vaccine that is not based upon genetic manipulation if the ingredients of the vaccination that might be relevant for allergy sufferers were published, not of course because I might have any worries for future children that a 72 year old man might produce, but because the present genetic manipulation vaccines stimulate antibodies for only one of the amino acid residues of SARS-Cov-2, and there has not been any approval for any vaccine that would protect from SARS-Cov-2 infection compared to the comprehensive immunity given by natural infection by the whole SARS-Cov-2 virus-like concotion. Australia did make a deal for Novavax, and the government ordered 51 million doses of this vaccine, but it’s yet to be approved by Australia’s drug regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), possibly due to contract issues made with the companies that produced the vaccines which are provisionally approved by the TGA. Novavax is a “protein subunit” vaccine, which are vaccines that introduce a part of the virus to the immune system, but don’t contain any live components of the virus. I think a lot of hesitant Australians were hoping for provisional approval of the Novavax vaccine, but for me I would need the ingredients of the vaccine to be published so I could evaluate it’s potential for adverse reactions in my case.

   CoronaVac, also known as the Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine, which is an inactivated virus COVID-19 vaccine developed by the Chinese company Sinovac Biotech that relies on traditional technology similar to other inactivated-virus COVID-19 vaccines, such as the Sinopharm BIBP vaccine, another Chinese vaccine, and is similar to the inactivated polio vaccine. polio vaccine. CoronaVac is the most widely used COVID-19 vaccine in the world, with 943 million doses delivered by July 2021, but it is not available in AUKUS countries. In my case Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine would be likely to cause an adverse reaction as it contains the adjuvant aluminium hydroxide. The Sinopharm COVID-19 vaccine is another inactivated vaccine that also contains the adjuvant aluminium hydroxide. A group of Australians allergic to aluminium hydroxide and PET lipid lobbied the government to support the COVID-19 vaccine using recombinant spike protein (25 µg) with Advax-SM adjuvant (15 mg) manufactured by South Australian company Vaxine but it has been maligned in the media as an “anti-vaxxers’ vaccine” (a contradiction in terms!) and ignored by the government and TGA.

   It’s important for researchers to note all complicating health risks which lead to their being more vulnerable to death, people with advanced age for example, as there are risks for groups that have and haven’t got specific morbidities. As you said there may be multiple factors as to why people die, but in the case of the present pandemic, death certificates listing the cause of death as COVID-19 follow the Guidance for Certifying Deaths due to COVID-19 published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics where “the new coronavirus strain (COVID-19) should be recorded on the medical cause of death certificate for ALL decedents where the disease caused, or is assumed to have caused, or contributed to death… Existing conditions, especially those which are chronic in nature, that may have also contributed to death should be certified in Part II of the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death. Chronic conditions may include but are not limited to: coronary artery disease, COPD, diabetes, cancer or disabilities”

   As at 27-April-2021 the reported case fatality ratios in the USA were 0.015%, 0.15%, 2.3%, and 17% for the age groups 0–17, 18–49, 50–74, and 75 or over, respectively, making a total of 796,764 deaths and 49,833,439 cases out of a population of approximately 330 million. This agrees with the survival rate of cases around the world (except Africa where death from COVID-19 cases is rarer and vaccination rates are much lower) of 99.85% survival rate.
   With such a low morbidity rate, which is lower than the morbidity recorded over many years for influenza around the world, we must question the rationale for declaring this as a medical pandemic. Certainly it is a political pandemic, with governments around the world making secretive contracts with parmaceutical giants, mandates for vaccination with provisionally approved genetic treatments, lockdowns, administrative detention of close contacts to cases declared positive by PCR tests that cannot differentiate between common cold coronavirus and SARS-Cov-2, electronic ID surveilance, and even withdrawal of the right of the uncooperative to go out to get food and water independently from government provision.

   Reply

3. https://off-guardian.org/2021/09/22/30-facts-you-need-to-know-your-covid-cribsheet/ 30 facts you NEED to know: Your Covid Cribsheet (by Kit Knightly)

   1. The survival rate of “Covid” is over 99%. Government medical experts went out of their way to underline, from the beginning of the pandemic, that the vast majority of the population are not in any danger from Covid. Almost all studies on the infection-fatality ratio (IFR) of Covid have returned results between 0.04% and 0.5%. Meaning Covid’s survival rate is at least 99.5%.

   2. There has been NO unusual excess mortality. The press has called 2020 the UK’s “deadliest year since world war two”, but this is misleading because it ignores the massive increase in the population since that time. A more reasonable statistical measure of mortality is Age-Standardised Mortality Rate (ASMR): … By this measure, 2020 isn’t even the worst year for mortality since 2000, In fact since 1943 only 9 years have been better than 2020. Similarly, in the US the ASMR for 2020 is only at 2004 levels: (See the graphs at https://off-guardian.org/2021/09/22/30-facts-you-need-to-know-your-covid-cribsheet). For a detailed breakdown of how Covid affected mortality across Western Europe and the US see https://swprs.org/covid-19-mortality-overview/. What increases in mortality we have seen could be attributable to non-Covid causes [facts 7, 9 & 19].

   3. “Covid death” counts are artificially inflated. Countries around the globe have been defining a “Covid death” as a “death by any cause within 28/30/60 days of a positive test”. Healthcare officials from Italy, Germany, the UK, US, Northern Ireland and others have all admitted to this practice: (see video) Removing any distinction between dying of Covid, and dying of something else after testing positive for Covid will naturally lead to over-counting of “Covid deaths”. British pathologist Dr John Lee was warning of this “substantial over-estimate” as early as last spring. Other mainstream sources have reported it, too. Considering the huge percentage of “asymptomatic” Covid infections [14], the well-known prevalence of serious comorbidities [fact 4] and the potential for false-positive tests [fact 18], this renders the Covid death numbers an extremely unreliable statistic

   4. The vast majority of covid deaths have serious comorbidities. In March 2020, the Italian government published statistics showing 99.2% of their “Covid deaths” had at least one serious comorbidity. These included cancer, heart disease, dementia, Alzheimer’s, kidney failure and diabetes (among others). Over 50% of them had three or more serious pre-existing conditions. This pattern has held up in all other countries over the course of the “pandemic”. An October 2020 FOIA request to the UK’s ONS revealed less than 10% of the official “Covid death” count at that time had Covid as the sole cause of death.

   5. Average age of “Covid death” is greater than the average life expectancy. The average age of a “Covid death” in the UK is 82.5 years. In Italy it’s 86. Germany, 83. Switzerland, 86. Canada, 86. The US, 78, Australia, 82. In almost all cases the median age of a “Covid death” is higher than the national life expectancy. As such, for most of the world, the “pandemic” has had little-to-no impact on life expectancy. Contrast this with the Spanish flu, which saw a 28% drop in life expectancy in the US in just over a year. [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data-visualization/mortality-trends/index.htm]

   6. Covid mortality exactly mirrors the natural mortality curve. Statistical studies from the UK and India have shown that the curve for “Covid death” follows the curve for expected mortality almost exactly: (See the graphs at https://off-guardian.org/2021/09/22/30-facts-you-need-to-know-your-covid-cribsheet). The risk of death “from Covid” follows, almost exactly, your background risk of death in general. The small increase for some of the older age groups can be accounted for by other factors.[facts 7, 9 & 19]

   7. There has been a massive increase in the use of “unlawful” DNRs. Watchdogs and government agencies have reported huge increases in the use of Do Not Resuscitate Orders (DNRs) over the last twenty months. In the US, hospitals considered “universal DNRs” for any patient who tested positive for Covid, and whistleblowing nurses have admitted the DNR system was abused in New York. In the UK there was an “unprecdented” rise in “illegal” DNRs for disabled people, GP surgeries sent out letters to non-terminal patients recommending they sign DNR orders, whilst other doctors signed “blanket DNRs” for entire nursing homes. A study done by Sheffield University found over one-third of all “suspected” Covid patients had a DNR attached to their file within 24 hours of hospital admission. Blanket use of coerced or illegal DNR orders could account for any increases in mortality in 2020/21.[Facts 2 & 6]

   8. Lockdowns do not prevent the spread of disease. There is little to no evidence lockdowns have any impact on limiting “Covid deaths”. If you compare regions that locked down to regions that did not, you can see no pattern at all. (See the graphs)

   9. Lockdowns kill people. There is strong evidence that lockdowns – through social, economic and other public health damage – are deadlier than the “virus”.
   Dr David Nabarro, World Health Organization special envoy for Covid-19 described lockdowns as a “global catastrophe” in October 2020: We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of the virus[…] it seems we may have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition […] This is a terrible, ghastly global catastrophe.” A UN report from April 2020 warned of 100,000s of children being killed by the economic impact of lockdowns (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-children-un/u-n-warns-economic-downturn-could-kill-hundreds-of-thousands-of-children-in-2020-idUSKBN21Y2X7), while tens of millions more face possible poverty and famine. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/un-pandemic-could-push-tens-of-millions-into-chronic-hunger/2020/07/13/0733e34e-c51e-11ea-a825-8722004e4150_story.html) Unemployment, poverty, suicide, alcoholism, drug use and other social/mental health crises are spiking all over the world. While missed and delayed surgeries and screenings are going to see increased mortality from heart disease, cancer et al. in the near future. The impact of lockdown would account for the small increases in excess mortality [Facts 2 & 6]

   10. Hospitals were never unusually over-burdened. the main argument used to defend lockdowns is that “flattening the curve” would prevent a rapid influx of cases and protect healthcare systems from collapse. But most healthcare systems were never close to collapse at all. In March 2020 it was reported that hospitals in Spain and Italy were over-flowing with patients, but this happens every flu season. In 2017 Spanish hospitals were at 200% capacity, and 2015 saw patients sleeping in corridors. A paper JAMA paper from March 2020 found that Italian hospitals “typically run at 85-90% capacity in the winter months”. In the UK, the NHS is regularly stretched to breaking point over the winter. As part of their Covid policy, the NHS announced in Spring of 2020 that they would be “re-organizing hospital capacity in new ways to treat Covid and non-Covid patients separately” and that “as result hospitals will experience capacity pressures at lower overall occupancy rates than would previously have been the case.” This means they removed thousands of beds. During an alleged deadly pandemic, they reduced the maximum occupancy of hospitals. Despite this, the NHS never felt pressure beyond your typical flu season, and at times actually had 4x more empty beds than normal. In both the UK and US millions were spent on temporary emergency hospitals that were never used.

   11. PCR tests were not designed to diagnose illness. The Reverse-Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) test is described in the media as the “gold standard” for Covid diagnosis. But the Nobel Prize-winning inventor of the process never intended it to be used as a diagnostic tool, and said so publicly: PCR is just a process that allows you to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that.”

   12. PCR Tests have a history of being inaccurate and unreliable. The “gold standard” PCR tests for Covid are known to produce a lot of false-positive results, by reacting to DNA material that is not specific to Sars-Cov-2. A Chinese study found the same patient could get two different results from the same test on the same day. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32219885/) In Germany, tests are known to have reacted to common cold viruses. A 2006 study found PCR tests for one virus responded to other viruses too. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32219885/) In 2007, a reliance on PCR tests resulted in an “outbreak” of Whooping Cough that never actually existed. (https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html) Some tests in the US even reacted to the negative control sample. (https://www.science.org/content/article/united-states-badly-bungled-coronavirus-testing-things-may-soon-improve) The late President of Tanzania, John Magufuli, submitted samples goat, pawpaw and motor oil for PCR testing, all came back positive for the virus. (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-tanzania-idUSKBN22F0KF) As early as February of 2020 experts were admitting the test was unreliable. Dr Wang Cheng, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences told Chinese state television “The accuracy of the tests is only 30-50%”. The Australian government’s own website claimed “There is limited evidence available to assess the accuracy and clinical utility of available COVID-19 tests.” (https://off-guardian.org/2020/09/05/australian-govts-own-website-admits-covid-tests-are-totally-unreliable/) And a Portuguese court ruled that PCR tests were “unreliable” and should not be used for diagnosis. (https://www-dgsi-pt.translate.goog/jtrl.nsf/33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec/79d6ba338dcbe5e28025861f003e7b30?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=pt&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB&_x_tr_pto=nui,elem) You can read detailed breakdowns of the failings of PCR tests at https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/15/has-covid-19-testing-made-the-problem-worse/, at https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/ and at https://off-guardian.org/2021/03/27/making-something-out-of-nothing-pcr-tests-ct-values-and-false-positives/.

   13. The CT values of the PCR tests are too high. PCR tests are run in cycles, the number of cycles you use to get your result is known as your “cycle threshold” or CT value. Kary Mullis said: “If you have to go more than 40 cycles[…]there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.” The MIQE PCR guidelines agree, stating: “[CT] values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported,” Dr Fauci himself even admitted anything over 35 cycles is almost never culturable. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Vy6fgaBPE). Dr Juliet Morrison, virologist at the University of California, Riverside, told the New York Times: Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive…I’m shocked that people would think that 40 [cycles] could represent a positive…A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35″. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html).
   In the same article Dr Michael Mina, of the Harvard School of Public Health, said the limit should be 30, and the author goes on to point out that reducing the CT from 40 to 30 would have reduced “covid cases” in some states by as much as 90%. The CDC’s own data suggests no sample over 33 cycles could be cultured (https://web.archive.org/web/20200828153214/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/duration-isolation.html), and Germany’s Robert Koch Institute says nothing over 30 cycles is likely to be infectious.(https://web.archive.org/web/20200925013250/https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Vorl_Testung_nCoV.html) Despite this, it is known almost all the labs in the US are running their tests at least 37 cycles and sometimes as high as 45. (Ray Bergmann adds: in Australia it is always around 45 and in the Northern Territory where the government is keen to remove the populace to enable fracking, the cycles are around 48.) The NHS “standard operating procedure” for PCR tests rules set the limit at 40 cycles. Based on what we know about the CT values, the majority of PCR test results are at best questionable.

   14. The World Health Organization (Twice) Admitted PCR tests produced false positives. In December 2020 WHO put out a briefing memo on the PCR process instructing labs to be wary of high CT values causing false positive results:
   when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain. Then, in January 2021, the WHO released another memo, this time warning that “asymptomatic” positive PCR tests should be re-tested because they might be false positives: Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

   15. The scientific basis for Covid tests is questionable. The genome of the Sars-Cov-2 virus was supposedly sequenced by Chinese scientists in December 2019, then published on January 10th 2020. Less than two weeks later, German virologists (Christian Drosten et al.) had allegedly used the genome to create assays for PCR tests. They wrote a paper, Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR, which was submitted for publication on January 21st 2020, and then accepted on January 22nd. Meaning the paper was allegedly “peer-reviewed” in less than 24 hours. A process that typically takes weeks. Since then, a consortium of over forty life scientists has petitioned for the withdrawal of the paper, writing a lengthy report detailing 10 major errors in the paper’s methodology. They have also requested the release of the journal’s peer-review report, to prove the paper really did pass through the peer-review process. The journal has yet to comply. The Corman-Drosten assays are the root of every Covid PCR test in the world. If the paper is questionable, every PCR test is also questionable.

   PART IV: “ASYMPTOMATIC INFECTION” is continued in a separate posting

   Reply

   1. PART IV: “ASYMPTOMATIC INFECTION”

      16. The majority of Covid infections are “asymptomatic”. From as early as March 2020, studies done in Italy were suggesting 50-75% of positive Covid tests had no symptoms. Another UK study from August 2020 found as much as 86% of “Covid patients” experienced no viral symptoms at all. It is literally impossible to tell the difference between an “asymptomatic case” and a false-positive test result.

      17. There is very little evidence supporting the alleged danger of “asymptomatic transmission”. In June 2020, Dr Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said: From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,”
      A meta-analysis of Covid studies, published by Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in December 2020, found that asymptomatic carriers had a less than 1% chance of infecting people within their household. Another study, done on influenza in 2009, found: …limited evidence to suggest the importance of [asymptomatic] transmission. The role of asymptomatic or presymptomatic influenza-infected individuals in disease transmission may have been overestimated…” Given the known flaws of the PCR tests, many “asymptomatic cases” may be false positives.[fact 14]

      PART V: VENTILATORS

      18. Ventilation is NOT a treatment for respiratory viruses. Mechanical ventilation is not, and never has been, recommended treatment for respiratory infection of any kind. In the early days of the pandemic, many doctors came forward questioning the use of ventilators to treat “Covid”. Writing in The Spectator, Dr Matt Strauss stated: Ventilators do not cure any disease. They can fill your lungs with air when you find yourself unable to do so yourself. They are associated with lung diseases in the public’s consciousness, but this is not in fact their most common or most appropriate application. German Pulmonologist Dr Thomas Voshaar, chairman of Association of Pneumatological Clinics said: When we read the first studies and reports from China and Italy, we immediately asked ourselves why intubation was so common there. This contradicted our clinical experience with viral pneumonia. Despite this, the WHO, CDC, ECDC and NHS all “recommended” Covid patients be ventilated instead of using non-invasive methods. This was not a medical policy designed to best treat the patients, but rather to reduce the hypothetical spread of Covid by preventing patients from exhaling aerosol droplets.

      19. Ventilators killed people. Putting someone on a ventilator who is suffering from influenza, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or any other condition which restricts breathing or affects the lungs, will not alleviate any of those symptoms. In fact, it will almost certainly make it worse, and will kill many of them. Intubation tubes are a source of potential a infection known as “ventilator-associated pneumonia”, which studies show affects up to 28% of all people put on ventilators, and kills 20-55% of those infected. Mechanical ventilation is also damaging to the physical structure of the lungs, resulting in “ventilator-induced lung injury”, which can dramatically impact quality of life, and even result in death. Experts estimate 40-50% of ventilated patients die, regardless of their disease. Around the world, between 66 and 86% of all “Covid patients” put on ventilators died. According to the “undercover nurse”, ventilators were being used so improperly in New York, they were destroying patients’ lungs: (see video at https://off-guardian.org/2021/09/22/30-facts-you-need-to-know-your-covid-cribsheet/). This policy was negligence at best, and potentially deliberate murder at worst. This misuse of ventilators could account for any increase in mortality in 2020/21 [Facts 2 & 6]

      PART VI: MASKS is continued in a separate posting

      Reply

      1. PART VI: MASKS

         20. Masks don’t work. At least a dozen scientific studies have shown that masks do nothing to stop the spread of respiratory viruses.
         One meta-analysis published by the CDC in May 2020 found “no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks”.
         Another study with over 8000 subjects found masks “did not seem to be effective against laboratory-confirmed viral respiratory infections nor against clinical respiratory infection.”
         There are literally too many to quote them all, but you can read them: [https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817][https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/covid-19-face-masks-community-first-update.pdf][https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/masking-lack-of-evidence-with-politics/][https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses][https://escipub.com/irjph-2021-08-1005/][https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0057100][https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data][https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372][https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e006577][https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/html/10.1055/a-1174-6591] Or read a summary by SPR at https://swprs.org/face-masks-and-covid-the-evidence/.
         While some studies have been done claiming to show mask do work for Covid, they are all seriously flawed. One relied on self-reported surveys as data. Another was so badly designed a panel of experts demand it be withdrawn. A third was withdrawn after its predictions proved entirely incorrect.
         The WHO commissioned their own meta-analysis in the Lancet, but that study looked only at N95 masks and only in hospitals. [For full run down on the bad data in this study read https://swprs.org/who-mask-study-seriously-flawed/.%5D
         Aside from scientific evidence, there’s plenty of real-world evidence that masks do nothing to halt the spread of disease. For example, North Dakota and South Dakota had near-identical case figures, despite one having a mask-mandate and the other not: (see graph).

         21. Masks are bad for your health. Wearing a mask for long periods, wearing the same mask more than once, and other aspects of cloth masks can be bad for your health. A long study on the detrimental effects of mask-wearing was recently published by the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8072811/pdf/ijerph-18-04344.pdf#page37)
         Dr. James Meehan reported in August 2020 he was seeing increases in bacterial pneumonia, fungal infections, facial rashes (https://www.globalresearch.ca/medical-doctor-warns-bacterial-pneumonias-rise-mask-wearing).
         Masks are also known to contain plastic microfibers, which damage the lungs when inhaled and may be potentially carcinogenic.(https://www.globalresearch.ca/medical-doctor-warns-bacterial-pneumonias-rise-mask-wearing)
         Childen wearing masks encourages mouth-breathing, which results in facial deformities.(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20129889/)
         People around the world have passed out due to CO2 poisoning while wearing their masks, and some children in China even suffered sudden cardiac arrest.

         22. Masks are bad for the planet. Millions upon millions of disposable masks have been used per month for over a year. A report from the UN found the Covid19 pandemic will likely result in plastic waste more than doubling in the next few years., and the vast majority of that is face masks.
         The report goes on to warn these masks (and other medical waste) will clog sewage and irrigation systems, which will have knock on effects on public health, irrigation and agriculture.
         A study from the University of Swansea found “heavy metals and plastic fibres were released when throw-away masks were submerged in water.” These materials are toxic to both people and wildlife. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-56972074)

         PART VII: VACCINES is continued in a separate posting

         Reply

   2. Hello Ray,

      I think it’s time for another fact check on COVID.

      Firstly, I doubt that Israel is 100%. vaccinated. I know that the Israeli government at first was refusing to vaccinate the Palestinian people on the West Bank and Gaza. I understand that other arrangements have been made, but within Israel itself, the occupied territories, that is, a lot of Israelis were resistant to vaccination, just like anywhere else.

      The other matter that you raise concerning the vaccines, I wonder whether you would be happy with the Chinese vaccine which does not rely upon genetic material, what it relies upon is a sample of the virus which is chemically altered. And then that produces the immune response when it’s given to the patients. I don’t know what the figures are in China, but it’d be interesting to find out, it would maybe it would allay your fears about the the genetic material that’s in the mRNA vaccines like Pfizer.

      Also I don’t like the term co-morbidity. The reason for this is that within the medical world, of course, there is a cause of death stipulated. That is alegal requirement. But in nearly every disease situation, there are multiple factors as to why people die. So to say, the the rate of mortality by this pandemic is far less than in previous ones, like the Spanish flu or Smallpox is because of comorbidity. That’s like saying, it’s just bad luck that people have some other complicating health risks which lead to their being vulnerable, particularly older people have an advanced age. This way of thinking unacceptable to everyone, yourself included, that we just allow people to die because they’re either sick, infirm, or old. That’s not acceptable.

      I’m sure you don’t mean it that way. But to use that term co-morbidity to say that the real cause of death is something else …. Well, what about the 600,000 people in the United States who have died … a country that is anti vaccine, where there are not high rates of vaccination as there are in neighboring Cuba, or in Britain, or Australia, for example, and you have 600,000 people dying,

      The cause of death has been given as COVID-19. So, do you just let it happen? In Norway, they started off like that, but then eventually, all countries have really, for the most part, have adopted a similar regime, that that is that they want their population to be vaccinated, and that the vaccines that have been produced have been tested, and that they do not stop you from getting the disease but they reduce the likelihood of it being serious or fatal. And that is, you know, our basic public health approach. Anyway that’s all for now, thank you.

      So what’s the solution?

      I draw reader’s attention to the issues raised by the ACTU in the interview with the Paradigm Shift’s Andy Paine “ACTU on Vaccine Mandates” @ https://workersbushtelegraph.com.au/2021/12/10/tackling-big-issues-in-unions/

      Ian
      11 Dec 2021

      Reply

4. Peter Doshi, senior editor of The BMJ wrote at https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/08/23/does-the-fda-think-these-data-justify-the-first-full-approval-of-a-covid-19-vaccine/:

   On 28 July 2021, Pfizer and BioNTech posted updated results for their ongoing phase 3 covid-19 vaccine trial. The preprint came almost a year to the day after the historical trial commenced, and nearly four months since the companies announced vaccine efficacy estimates “up to six months.” The 20 page preprint matters because it represents the most detailed public account of the pivotal trial data Pfizer submitted in pursuit of the world’s first “full approval” of a coronavirus vaccine from the Food and Drug Administration. It deserves careful scrutiny.

   As a randomized controlled trial (RCT) reporting “up to six months of follow-up,” it is notable that evidence of waning immunity was already visible in the data by the 13 March 2021 data cut-off. Waning efficacy has the potential to be far more than a minor inconvenience; it can dramatically change the risk-benefit calculus. And whatever its cause—intrinsic properties of the vaccine, the circulation of new variants, some combination of the two, or something else—the bottom line is that vaccines need to be effective. Until new clinical trials demonstrate that boosters increase efficacy above 50%, without increasing serious adverse events, it is unclear whether the 2-dose series would even meet the FDA’s approval standard at six or nine months.

   The final efficacy timepoint reported in Pfizer’s preprint is “from four months to the data cut-off.” The confidence interval here is wider than earlier time points because only half of trial participants (53%) made it to the four month mark, and mean follow-up is around 4.4 months. This all happened because starting last December, Pfizer allowed all trial participants to be formally unblinded, and placebo recipients to get vaccinated. By 13 March 2021 (data cut-off), 93% of trial participants (41,128 of 44,060; Fig 1) were unblinded, officially entering “open-label followup.” (Ditto for Moderna: by mid April, 98% of placebo recipients had been vaccinated.)

   Despite the reference to “six month safety and efficacy” in the preprint’s title, the paper only reports on vaccine efficacy “up to six months,” but not from six months. This is not semantics, as it turns out only 7% of trial participants actually reached six months of blinded follow-up (“8% of BNT162b2 recipients and 6% of placebo recipients had ≥6 months follow-up post-dose 2.”) So despite this preprint appearing a year after the trial began, it provides no data on vaccine efficacy past six months, which is the period Israel says vaccine efficacy has dropped to 39%.

   It is hard to imagine that the <10% of trial participants who remained blinded at six months (which presumably further dwindled after 13 March 2021) could constitute a reliable or valid sample to produce further findings. And the preprint does not report any demographic comparisons to justify future analyses.With the US awash in news about rising cases of the Delta variant, including among the “fully vaccinated,” the vaccine’s efficacy profile is in question. But some medical commentators are delivering an upbeat message.

   Former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, who is on Pfizer’s board, said: “Remember, the original premise behind these vaccines were [sic] that they would substantially reduce the risk of death and severe disease and hospitalization. And that was the data that came out of the initial clinical trials.”
   Yet, the trials were not designed to study severe disease. In the data that supported Pfizer’s EUA, the company itself characterized the “severe covid-19” endpoint results as “preliminary evidence.” Hospital admission numbers were not reported, and zero covid-19 deaths occurred.

   In the preprint, high efficacy against “severe covid-19” is reported based on all follow-up time (one event in the vaccinated group vs 30 in placebo), but the number of hospital admissions is not reported so we don’t know which, if any, of these patients were ill enough to require hospital treatment. (In Moderna’s trial, data last year showed that 21 of 30 “severe covid-19” cases were not admitted to hospital. And on preventing death from covid-19, there are too few data to draw conclusions—a total of three covid-19 related deaths (one on vaccine, two on placebo). There were 29 total deaths during blinded follow-up (15 in the vaccine arm; 14 in placebo).

   The crucial question, however, is whether the waning efficacy seen in the primary endpoint data also applies to the vaccine’s efficacy against severe disease. Unfortunately, Pfizer’s new preprint does not report the results in a way that allows for evaluating this question.

   Last December, with limited data, the FDA granted Pfizer’s vaccine an EUA, enabling access to all Americans who wanted one. It sent a clear message that the FDA could both address the enormous demand for vaccines without compromising on the science. A “full approval” could remain a high bar.

   But here we are, with FDA reportedly on the verge of granting a marketing license 13 months into the still ongoing, two year pivotal trial, with no reported data past 13 March 2021, unclear efficacy after six months due to unblinding, evidence of waning protection irrespective of the Delta variant, and limited reporting of safety data. (The preprint reports “decreased appetite, lethargy, asthenia, malaise, night sweats, and hyperhidrosis were new adverse events attributable to BNT162b2 not previously identified in earlier reports,” but provides no data tables showing the frequency of these, or other, adverse events.)

   It’s not helping matters that FDA now says it won’t convene its advisory committee to discuss the data ahead of approving Pfizer’s vaccine. (Last August, to address vaccine hesitancy, the agency had “committed to use an advisory committee composed of independent experts to ensure deliberations about authorization or licensure are transparent for the public.”)

   FDA should be demanding that the companies complete the two year follow-up, as originally planned (even without a placebo group, much can still be learned about safety). They should demand adequate, controlled studies using patient outcomes in the now substantial population of people who have recovered from covid. And regulators should bolster public trust by helping ensure that everyone can access the underlying data.

   (Ray Bergmann adds: With the crucial vaccine data inadequate to determine the safety or efficiency of the mRNA and Adenovirus vector DNA vaccines it would be foolhardy and immoral for any government to mandate leaky vaccines to anyone. Only volunteers should be receiving these experimental genetic manipulation drugs as there are no long-term studies of adverse reactions and the short term data is still inadequate to predict whether they are safe or effective.)

   Reply

   1. Hello Ray,

      Thanks for your comments.

      The horse has bolted, over 90% of the Australian adult population have voluntarily received vaccines against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

      The anti-vaxxers are an extreme minority.

      Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison is reported to have said “Over the last couple of years, governments have been telling Australians what to do … Now there has been a need for that as we have gone through the pandemic, but the time is now to start rolling all of that back.”

      Why Morrison would extend any credence to this minority group is beyond me.

      Ian

      Reply

      1. People can minimise adverse reactions to the spike protein of either Covid-19 or the vaccines with  dandelion root (Taraxacum officinale) which efficiently blocks the interaction between ACE2 cell surface receptor and SARS-CoV-2 spike protein D614, mutants D614G, N501Y, K417N and E484K in vitro. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.19.435959v1

         Metabolic scientist Ivor Cummins BE(Chem) CEng MIEI PMP and Donal O’Neill, documentary Film maker in the field of health and human performance, have just released “Covid Chronicles (2021)” available for download at https://covidchroniclesmovie.com/ The film might answer your question of why anti-mandatory-vaxxers are an extreme minority

         Reply

   2. PART VII: VACCINES

      23. Covid “vaccines” are totally unprecedented. Before 2020 no successful vaccine against a human coronavirus had ever been developed. Since then we have allegedly made 20 of them in 18 months. (https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2020-04-17/coronavirus-vaccine-ian-frazer/12146616)

      Scientists have been trying to develop a SARS and MERS vaccine for years with little success. Some of the failed SARS vaccines actually caused hypersensitivity to the SARS virus.(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335060/) Meaning that vaccinated mice could potentially get the disease more severely than unvaccinated mice. Another attempt caused liver damage in ferrets.(https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2004/12/sars-vaccine-linked-liver-damage-ferret-study)

      While traditional vaccines work by exposing the body to a weakened strain of the microorganism responsible for causing the disease, these new Covid vaccines are mRNA vaccines. (https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-magazine)

      mRNA (messenger ribonucleic acid) vaccines theoretically work by injecting viral mRNA into the body, where it replicates inside your cells and encourages your body to recognise, and make antigens for, the “spike proteins” of the virus. They have been the subject of research since the 1990s, but before 2020 no mRNA vaccine was ever approved for use. (https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/rna-vaccines-a-novel-technology-to-prevent-and-treat-disease/)

      *

      24. Vaccines do not confer immunity or prevent transmission. It is readily admitted that Covid “vaccines” do not confer immunity from infection and do not prevent you from passing the disease onto others. Indeed, an article in the British Medical Journal highlighted that the vaccine studies were not designed to even try and assess if the “vaccines” limited transmission. (https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037)

      The vaccine manufacturers themselves, upon releasing the untested mRNA gene therapies, were quite clear their product’s “efficacy” was based on “reducing the severity of symptoms”. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/22/one-vaccine-protection-severe-covid-evidence)

      *

      25. The vaccines were rushed and have unknown longterm effects. Vaccine development is a slow, laborious process. Usually, from development through testing and finally being approved for public use takes many years. The various vaccines for Covid were all developed and approved in less than a year. Obviously there can be no long-term safety data on chemicals which are less than a year old. (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/vaccine-development-barriers-coronavirus/)

      Pfizer even admit this is true in the leaked supply contract between the pharmaceutical giant, and the government of Albania: the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known (https://gogo.al/ekskluzive-kontrata-sekrete-e-qeverise-me-pfizer-per-vaksinat/)

      Further, none of the vaccines have been subject to proper trials. (https://off-guardian.org/2021/01/03/what-vaccine-trials/) Many of them skipped early-stage trials entirely, and the late-stage human trials have either not been peer-reviewed, have not released their data, will not finish until 2023 (https://web.archive.org/web/20201128213442/https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT04516746) or were abandoned after “severe adverse effects”.(https://web.archive.org/web/20201229112508/https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT04540393)

      *

      26. Vaccine manufacturers have been granted legal indemnity should they cause harm. The USA’s Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP) grants immunity until at least 2024. (https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html)

      The EU’s product licensing law does the same (https://fullfact.org/health/unlicensed-vaccine-manufacturers-are-immune-some-not-all-civil-liability/), and there are reports of confidential liability clauses in the contracts the EU signed with vaccine manufacturers. (https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-eu-vaccine-idUKKCN26D0UG)

      The UK went even further, granting permanent legal indemnity to the government, and any employees thereof, for any harm done when a patient is being treated for Covid19 or “suspected Covid19”. (https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/08/coronavirus-fact-check-2-the-emergency-powers-will-only-last-2-years/)

      Again, the leaked Albanian contract suggests that Pfizer, at least, made this indemnity a standard demand of supplying Covid vaccines: “Purchaser hereby agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer […] from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, losses, damages, liabilities, settlements, penalties, fines, costs and expenses”

      PART VIII: DECEPTION & FOREKNOWLEDGE is continued in a separate posting

      Reply

      1. PART VIII: DECEPTION & FOREKNOWLEDGE

         27. The EU was preparing “vaccine passports” at least a YEAR before the pandemic began. Proposed COVID countermeasures, presented to the public as improvised emergency measures, have existed since before the emergence of the disease. (see Roadmap at https://off-guardian.org/wp-content/medialibrary/2019-2022_roadmap_en-1.pdf?x60878). This report’s final conclusions were released to the public in September 2019, just a month before Event 201 (see below).

         Two EU documents published in 2018, the “2018 State of Vaccine Confidence” (https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/default/files/vaccination/docs/2018_vaccine_confidence_en.pdf) and a technical report titled “Designing and implementing an immunisation information system” (https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/designing-implementing-immunisation-information-system_0.pdf) discussed the plausibility of an EU-wide vaccination monitoring system. These documents were combined into the 2019 “Vaccination Roadmap”, which (among other things) established a “feasibility study” on vaccine passports to begin in 2019 and finish in 2021: (see Roadmap at (https://off-guardian.org/wp-content/medialibrary/2019-2022_roadmap_en-1.pdf?x60878). This report’s final conclusions were released to the public in September 2019, just a month before Event 201 (see below).

         28. A “training exercise” predicted the pandemic just weeks before it started. In October 2019 the World Economic Forum and Johns Hopkins University held Event 201. (https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/scenario.html) This was a training exercise based on a zoonotic coronavirus starting a worldwide pandemic. The exercise was sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and GAVI the vaccine alliance. The exercise published its findings and recommendations in November 2019 as a “call to action”. (https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/event201-resources/200117-PublicPrivatePandemicCalltoAction.pdf)
         One month later, China recorded their first case of “Covid”.

         *

         29. Since the beginning of 2020, the Flu has “disappeared”. In the United States, since February 2020, influenza cases have allegedly dropped by over 98%.(https://www.healthline.com/health-news/why-the-flu-season-basically-disappeared-this-year#What-drove-down-flu-activity?)
         It’s not just the US either, globally flu has apparently almost completely disappeared.(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/flu-has-disappeared-worldwide-during-the-covid-pandemic1/)
         Meanwhile, a new disease called “Covid”, which has identical symptoms and a similar mortality rate to influenza, is apparently affecting all the people normally affected by the flu.

         30. The elite have made fortunes during the pandemic. Since the beginning of lockdown the wealthiest people have become significantly wealthier. Forbes reported that 40 new billionaires have been created “fighting the coronavirus”,(https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2021/04/06/meet-the-40-new-billionaires-who-got-rich-fighting-covid-19/?sh=5e83defb17e5) with 9 of them being vaccine manufacturers.(https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/covid-vaccines-create-9-new-billionaires-combined-wealth-greater-cost-vaccinating)
         Business Insider reported that “billionaires saw their net worth increase by half a trillion dollars” by October 2020. (https://www.businessinsider.com/billionaires-net-worth-increases-coronavirus-pandemic-2020-7?op=1&r=US&IR=T)
         Clearly that number will be even bigger by now.

         These are the vital facts of the pandemic, presented here as a resource to help formulate and support your arguments with friends or strangers. Thanks to all the researchers who have collated and collected this information over the last twenty months, especially Swiss Policy Research.
         If you have anything you would like to see included, let us know in the comments (at https://off-guardian.org/2021/09/22/30-facts-you-need-to-know-your-covid-cribsheet/)

         Read next – the truth about ivermectin at https://off-guardian.org/2021/09/29/coronavirus-fact-check-12-ivermectin/

         Reply

   3. Tonight I came across the article below which has alarming Deaths following COVID vaccine statistics from health.gov.au – the article compares Deaths from COVID between January & June 2021 (total of 1 death) with Deaths following Vaccine injection between January & June 2021 (272 people have died in 2021 after receiving COVID-19 vaccines in Australia!)

      Underreported: Deaths After Vaccine Outnumber COVID Deaths, Australian
      Stats From Jan-June 2021 Reveal ·
      (https://caldronpool.com/underreported-deaths-after-vaccine-outnumber-covid-deaths-australian-stats-from-jan-june-2021-reveal/)
      by ROD LAMPARD, 29 June 2021

      As of June 28, 2021, 272 people have died in 2021 after receiving
      COVID-19 vaccines in Australia. Only 1 person has died from the virus
      in 2021.

      The Australian government’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has
      acknowledged, (From 1 Jan 2021) “to 6 June 2021, the TGA has received
      272 reports of death following vaccination for COVID-19 vaccines. With
      27,072 total AEFI reports on side-effects.”
      (https://caldronpool.com/doctors-vs-the-state-excessive-lockdowns-are-political-not-medicinal/)*

      As of June 28, 2021, the COVID-19 fatality roll stands at 910. Of
      those 910 COVID deaths, 909 occurred in 2020.
      Statistics last updated 31 December 2020 showing 909 deaths in total.
      Source: health.gov.au
      Coronavirus (COVID-19) at a glance infographic collection | Australian
      Government Department of Health

      Statistics last updated 24 June 2021 showing 1 death between December
      31, 2020, and June 24, 2021. Source: health.gov.au
      Coronavirus (COVID-19) at a glance infographic collection | Australian
      Government Department of Health

      There are two reasons why this information is not being reported widely.
      Firstly, as I explained at length in my piece entitled, Doctors vs.
      The State. It’s about politics, not healthcare.

      There’s a narrative to protect and an election cycle around the
      corner. Hence, the TGA follows up their acknowledgement of vaxx deaths
      and side-effects, with the dismissive disclaimer, “for reports of
      death other than TTS, our review of cases and analysis of reporting
      patterns does not suggest that the vaccine caused these deaths.”

      TGA information on known adverse side-effects such as Myocarditis and
      pericarditis, multi-organ failure, Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia
      syndrome, and Herpes zoster (shingles) are preceded by the statement
      “most reports of side-effects are observed with vaccines generally.
      They include headache, muscle and joint pain, fever and injection site
      reactions.”

      Secondly, the higher number of deaths sell better. Why report there’s
      only been 1 death so far this year from COVID, when 910 gives a
      picture to incite panic, by way of an emergency.

      Fear porn is rampant in legacy media. Australia’s national broadcaster
      and many within the media industry jumped on last week’s new COVID
      cases in Sydney, New South Wales to hype up the hysteria.

      Quick to demand suffocating, livelihood killing lockdowns, they
      couldn’t hide their vulgar drooling over the opportunity to politicise
      C19 and kick-in the hour-to-hour coverage of “BREAKING news.”

      Through a series of related articles or live blogs, the ABC, the Age,
      The New Daily, joined by their typical Twitter groupies (see here,
      here and here), demanded the Liberal State Premier of New South Wales,
      Gladys Berejiklian put the state into lockdown.

      When the Premier wouldn’t cave in, Leftist, legacy media turned up the
      pressure. Berejiklian then worked out a compromise, giving orders to
      only lockdown affected suburbs, and add mask mandates across the
      state.

      The totalitarians in the media didn’t get what they wanted. Now
      Berejiklian is being accused of doing “too little, too late,” with one
      Twitter user touting, “Conservatives are fundamentally incapable of
      governing in the public interest because they don’t believe in the
      ‘public’.. Thanks Gladys..”

      The “there will be casualties, but…” upbeat, pro-C19 vaccine
      propaganda (Eric Clapton’s words, not mine), isn’t hard to miss.
      In a piece published by The Guardian on Sunday entitled Why most
      people who now die with Covid in England have been vaccinated, David
      Spiegelhalter, a statistician, asserted:

      “It could sound worrying that the majority of people dying in England
      with the now-dominant Delta (B.1.617.2) variant have been vaccinated.
      Does this mean the vaccines are ineffective? Far from it, it’s what we
      would expect from an effective but imperfect vaccine…”

      Spiegelhalter’s upbeat attempt to play down C19 deaths of those with
      the vaccines ended the piece with a hit-and-run sentence encouraging
      people to pay attention to numbers that matter, not “hot takes on
      social or other media.”

      All that was missing were smug, “oh well”, “too bad, how sad” emojis
      to back help hide the false sense of achievement, and the empty show
      of solidarity with families of the vaxxed dead.

      Notice how the C19 “vaccinated class” would rather self-promote, than
      sigh with the wounded.

      At the same time, this went live, Dr. Robert Malone, inventor of mRNA
      vaccines shared a peer-reviewed analysis writing:
      “Just out. Peer-reviewed. COVID vaccine risk/benefit ratio.
      Simply put: As we prevent three deaths by vaccinating, we incur two
      deaths.”

      The MDPI article concluded:
      “For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two
      inflicted by vaccination. This lack of clear benefit should cause
      governments to rethink their vaccination policy.”

      Adding:
      “The present assessment raises the question whether it would be
      necessary to rethink policies and use COVID-19 vaccines more sparingly
      and with some discretion only in those that are willing to accept the
      risk because they feel more at risk from the true infection than the
      mock infection. Perhaps it might be necessary to dampen the enthusiasm
      by sober facts?”

      Update: MDPI has retracted the peer-reviewed piece, however, the
      authors were notified of the retraction and did not agree.

      There’s good reason to question the vaxx and lockdown hype, and how
      this hype ignores, and even undermines, the right of informed consent.
      I explained these in my piece “Anti-Vaxxer” Is the New “That’s
      Racist”, alongside an article – banned by Twitter – discussing Bret
      Weinstein, and Dr. Perrie Kody’s thoughts on the censorship of
      potentially life-saving treatments such as Ivermectin, called,
      Evolutionary Biologist Calls Censorship of Ivermectin the “Crime of
      the Century”

      Add Dr. Malone’s piece on the Bioethics of Experimental C19 Vaccine
      Deployment, where he tells of how:
      “Any practicing physician in Canada who goes public with concerns
      about vaccine safety is subjected to a storm of derision from academic
      physicians and potential termination of employment (state-controlled
      socialized medicine) and loss of license to practice.”

      He then concludes:
      “The suppression of information, discussion, and outright censorship
      concerning these current COVID vaccines which are based on gene
      therapy technologies cast a bad light on the entire vaccine
      enterprise…Suppression of adverse effects violates fundamental
      bioethical principles for clinical research.”

      That 272 have apparently died from, as yet unlicensed, experimental
      “vaccines” to fight the virus, should be ringing alarm bells.
      Yet, legacy media are selectively silent.
      Cue bono?

      While, can-work-anywhere with a laptop, latte, and Wifi content
      providers demand lockdowns from bureaucrats, who receive their cushy
      tax-payer incomes as normal, the worker suffers.

      People who choose to blindly follow these lockdown whores* (*Video
      gaming community term for opportunists who jump on events just to pad
      their stats. ), who censor treatments, medical practitioners and
      deceptively play a numbers game to pad a narrative, are an accomplice
      in the theft of income, psychological, emotional and, by default,
      physical abuse of those, whose lives are affected by the decisions of
      politicians and an activist class, who care nothing for people, only
      power.

      To quote David Horowitz from ‘The Enemy Within,’ “It is in the nature
      of human institutions that they require vigilance to keep them
      honest.”

      The numbers speak for themselves.

      As of June 28, 2021, there are 272 dead following the vaccines, only 1
      dead from COVID-19.

      It’s time big tech, big government, and big media came clean.

      * Below is a short extract from the https://caldronpool.com/doctors-vs-the-state-excessive-lockdowns-are-political-not-medicinal/ article mentioned above:

      Is the Victorian Labor government’s obsession with lockdowns – and any
      government who forces an experimental vaccine on its people – in
      contradiction to international law? The short answer is a tentative,
      hell yes.

      Bureaucratic health “experts” are demanding that medical practitioners
      read from the approved script handed down by the – discredited on
      COVID – World Health Organisation, even if doctors know it to be
      wrong, and even if this means conflating the role of doctor with that
      of politician.

      This explains the censorship, chasm of conflicting information, and
      why there’s a burgeoning tension between those with muddied boots on
      the ground, and health bureaucrats, who are tethered, on the tax-payer
      dime, to comfortable chairs in insulated offices. It’s political, not
      medicinal.

      Reply

      1. On 7-Dec-2021 former Australian pro-basketball player Ben Madgen has been diagnosed with pericarditis (inflammation of the sac surrounding the heart) shortly after receiving his second dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. Madgen ended up in the emergency room following the jab.
         Earlier that week it was reported that an Adelaide Crows SANFL football player was sent to hospital and diagnosed with pericarditis after his Pfizer shot. Madgen was surprised when his doctors told him that pericarditis is a common side effect of the Pfizer shot which indicates that he was not told about this possible side effect prior to receiving the shot.

         Senator Gerard Rennick reported on 10-Dec-2012 that the TGA has received 345 reports of myocarditis/pericarditis since the previous week’s report, and 48 of these cases are in teenagers.

         On 14-Nov-2021 the Jessica Rose myocarditis paper was unethically “temporarily” removed by Elsevier over the objection of the Editor of the journal and in violation of all known scientific protocols (sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146280621002267?via%3Dihub).

         Reply

5. The final issue brought forward at https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/another-major-red-flag-about-covid is that the Swedish figures offer a very large real-world dataset apparently showing a notable increase in all-cause mortality directly following Covid vaccination.

   “They are yet another piece of evidence in an increasingly worrying picture – alongside case and anecdotal reports, a known link to heart inflammation in young men, the updated Pfizer clinical trial data revealing a numerical imbalance in deaths in vaccinated people, and most importantly the general rise in all-cause mortality in many countries.

   “And all of these red flags come for vaccines that – if the Swedish data are correct – may actually raise the risk of Covid infection after about eight months.

   “Yes, RAISE. See how that black line drops below the zero level on the top chart? That represents negative effectiveness, which is another way to say people who are vaccinated are MORE likely to be infected than those who aren’t.

   “And, as the second chart shows, effectiveness against severe Covid infection is also spiraling towards zero.”

   Reply

6. The full paper that can be downloaded at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920304337 showed a raised death rate in the two weeks after vaccination across the Swedish population. The paper’s headline referred to waning vaccine immunity, but on page 32, a chart shows that 3,939 of 4.03 million Swedes who received the second dose died less than two weeks later. While the chart shows these figures the implications were not discussed in the paper, but here is a blog where it is discussed: https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/another-major-red-flag-about-covid

   A magic trick performed by health authorities when comparing these groups is extending the timeline to the beginning of this year, when almost no one was vaccinated. This is important due to seasonal effects in countries like the UK that tend to see peaks in their winter season. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/uk-health-authority-slammed-watchdog-misleading-claim-unvaxxd-have-32-times-risk-covid

   It is very concerning and requires further investigation because all cause mortality is the primary endpoint – if Covid is so deadly, and vaccines are so effective, then the signal should be apparent in all cause mortality AND covid related mortality. Sadly, it is ignored in this study. Moreover, if the vaccine ends up killing more people from heart problems than saving from Covid, its use cannot be justified in the general population.
   An important side note is that results should be age stratified. It may be that vaccines show benefit in reducing risk for elderly but not young people.

   Reply

7. Hello Ian, You wrote “over 90% of adults so there is no lack of data about the efficacy of the vaccine” – could you point to where there is data showing the efficiency of any of the mRNA or Adenovirus vector DNA vaccines?

   In the 25 October 2021 Lancet contribution from University of Umea – Unit of Geriatric Medicine (published at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410) entitled “Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccination Against Risk of Symptomatic Infection, Hospitalization, and Death Up to 9 Months: A Swedish Total-Population Cohort Study”, presented a retrospective cohort study that was conducted using Swedish nationwide registries. The cohort comprised 842,974 pairs (N=1,684,958), including individuals vaccinated with 2 doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, mRNA-1273, or BNT162b2, and matched unvaccinated individuals. Cases of symptomatic infection and severe Covid-19 (hospitalization or 30-day mortality after confirmed infection) were collected from 12 January to 4 October 2021. The results (showing that Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Covid-19 infection wanes progressively over time across all subgroups, but at different rate according to type of vaccine, and faster for men and older frail individuals) were proffered to strengthen the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third booster dose. The Comments below are worth reading. The comment by Iris Dogma points out that “given the possible risks of immune escape/antigenic sin, and uncertainty over the exact way the immune system functions in response to various conditions for c19 and vaccine – studies should always stratify previously infected, non-infected (confirmed by antibody test if possible), and vaccinated but not previously infected. Not doing so, is simply not properly controlling your study at all IMO. Sadly, virtually all studies are not doing this. We know that there are differences in the immune response between spike based vaccine and post-infectious immune responses. So we should be controlling for this.”

   The paper at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920304337 maintains that “Only double-blind placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials when done with robust randomisation methodologies can yield high-quality data.” Examining trials by the World Health Organization (WHO) and The National Institutes of Health (NIH) the paper “found that the randomisation methodologies of these trials were suboptimal for matching the studied groups based on disease severity among critically-ill hospitalised COVID-19 patients with high mortality rates. The published literature is very limited regarding the disease severity metrics among the compared groups and failed to show that the data are without fatal sampling errors and sampling biases. We also found that there is a definite need for the validation of data in these trials along with additional important disease severity metrics to ensure that the trials’ conclusions are accurate. We also propose proper randomisation methodologies for the design of RCTs for COVID-19 as well as guidance for the publication of COVID-19 trial results.”

   There is a lot of work to be done before anyone can say that the mRNA or Adenovirus vector DNA vaccines are safe and effective. Certainly before such experimental vaccines could ever be mandated!

   Reply

   1. Hello Ray,

      You have missed the point my source was trying to make … the source is saying that because there are so many people who have received the jab, in the end the truth will out … the data is so great that, at some point in the future, the efficacy of the various vaccines will be known by all.

      To explain … I asked my source if the rumours spread early on in mainstream media about Astrazeneca causing widespread thrombosis could have been a black ops operation by its (then) chief competitor Pfizer. [Bearing in mind, both are profit making companies].

      At the time the reported rates of thrombosis were a huge beat-up because the early data showing thrombosis fell within the range of statistical error.

      As I pointed out in the article, I have not checked the veracity of my sources claims about how the government came to approve Astrazeneca. Perhaps you or some of our readers (if there are any) may like to look into those claims (or, at least, as I interpreted those claims).

      Ian

      Reply